Author
Topic: Oregon Refuge Standoff (Read 28900 times)

As a resident of the west who ventures into the sagebrush areas, has worked for the Federal Government, spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with regulators, I've been following the standoff at the Malheur Refuge with interest. Over the years I've also followed the related threads of the Sagebrush Rebellion, practice and impacts of grazing on public lands, and the patriot/constitutionalist/militia movements.

My take on the issues of the occupation and request to return lands to local control (effectively have carte blanch to extract natural resources with little/no constraint is clearly intended across these groups) is that it is the tragedy of the commons (google it if you are not familiar with the concept) writ large, and interspersed with people confronting a changing world, and fringe militancy, and extreme libertarian ideologies. Pretty much all sides think the actual occupiers are both strategically and tactically off on their occupation (see sources anywhere from Gawker to High Country News to Oathkeepers.org). But, it is a window into an interesting group of people in our nation. One that I disagree with strongly on many, many points, but find very fascinating. To be gracious, it seems like supposedly good-sounding principles being divorced from the reality that our actions have impacts, and that we live in a broader society that we have to interact with and have shared responsibility with (i.e., the concept of the social contract).

The parallel thread is the largely toothless enforcement of lease permits and laws by the BLM.

I have been following it, but I share your take on it. I find it funny that many of the movements lack a larger base based on simple economics. Specifically, that the average rancher can end up with a pretty sweet deal when leasing from the feds, and ends up paying a fraction of market rates. Other than that, they seems to be a delusional group that bases their "beliefs" on a mixture of fantasy, claiming that they have rights to property that the feds. owned in many cases since the day they wrestled control from the tribes, and well before the states were even established. Coupled with the delusion that "giving" control of the land to individual states will create some kind of economic nirvana. In reality, it wouldn't take too long until the extraction industries, and massive multi-national "ranchers" have a monopoly, and these dumbasses end up with a big bag of nothing, pretty much how I worked at the end of the 19th century, in fact, LOL. I am continually fascinated by how much of the thought process of many rural westerners is based on a romanticized version of the way it was, and all they are continually be deprived of, due to whatever villain is currently being hyped in their low information circle of information.

I have been following it, but I share your take on it. I find it funny that many of the movements lack a larger base based on simple economics. Specifically, that the average rancher can end up with a pretty sweet deal when leasing from the feds, and ends up paying a fraction of market rates. Other than that, they seems to be a delusional group that bases their "beliefs" on a mixture of fantasy, claiming that they have rights to property that the feds. owned in many cases since the day they wrestled control from the tribes, and well before the states were even established. Coupled with the delusion that "giving" control of the land to individual states will create some kind of economic nirvana. In reality, it wouldn't take too long until the extraction industries, and massive multi-national "ranchers" have a monopoly, and these dumbasses end up with a big bag of nothing, pretty much how I worked at the end of the 19th century, in fact, LOL. I am continually fascinated by how much of the thought process of many rural westerners is based on a romanticized version of the way it was, and all they are continually be deprived of, due to whatever villain is currently being hyped in their low information circle of information.

I would add that there is also a significant population of ranchers who genuinely care for the land, manage land properly, play by the rules, and have little in common with the turds mentioned above. Ranchers tend to fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but there are many flavors there.

I think they're mostly ignored. The Daily Show (now with Trevor Noah) had a bit on them briefly with the hint that it was a good idea to get all kinds of crazies self-imprisoning themselves in the middle of nowhere. In that bit, one of the Daily Show crew explained how helpful he was in sending out of date clothing or children's socks to these guys in a care package.

On the more serious side, I think the FBI needs to keep protective duty on government workers related to this place. They've reported being followed home - probably by militia members. I don't think they should mess with stalking and intimidation - those are arrest worthy.

The authorities need to turn the power off, starve them out, arrest them, prosecute them, and put them in jail. There are legal ways to protest, and this is not example of than. Then we need a congressional investigation of the BLM and alleged actions of certain employees, with follow-on disciplinary action or prosecution of those employees if the investigation warrants it.

After the hubbub dies down, we need to start a real conversation about how we make rural communities livable and economically viable. Wealth continues to concentrate in our urban and suburban areas. Those areas continue to expand and pave over farmlands and countryside at the expense of any environmental or habitat values. As the urban centers grow, the concentration of voting power increases in those urban centers, and they can act to "preserve" the rural areas as their own amusement park. This impacts the economic vitality of those rural areas, making people very frustrated.

How would people in urban areas feel if those in rural areas could vote to limit their further development; force "habitat restoration" on all undeveloped lots, parks, riverfronts, and wildlife corridors; and prohibit any sort of tree cutting, lawn fertilizing, or flood mitigation work on the grounds that "nature needs to be allowed to be natural"?

So I guess, it is a cry for attention and a great opportunity to think about how to solve the problems of these people. I am sure a wealthy, democratic country can find a solution that satisfies all parties! ;)

I read that article a couple of days ago, and that is part of the basis of my comments, along with my own experience in the rural western U.S. However, while a cry for help is okay and should be investigated and understood, it is illegal and unacceptable to occupy property that is not your own (with weapons, no less), imply threats of violence, and vandalize that public property. These thugs need to face justice, and then we need to understand the frustration behind their motives and consider what reasonable things can be done.

Would a handful of people with picket signs in Burns, Oregon have attracted any attention at all? I doubt it. That said, Bundy is a moron who is trying to conflate his self-interest with the outright bullshit that was force upon the Hammonds by the BLM and the dept of justice. The Hammonds should absolutely be freed from jail. This was clearly done to ruin the hammonds, who plea-bargained for the shorter sentences by allowing the BLM to have first right of refusal on the sale of their property.

The BLM should also have some of it's employees jailed. They set wildfires all the time, and have killed hundreds of cattle and destroyed thousands of acres of private land. They diverted water to flood out ranchers who refused their low-ball offers for their land.

As someone who grew up on the ranch, I can attest to the thug tactics used by the DFW and BLM when trying to land-grab. Examples: a neighbor made his property a nature refuge for birds and frogs. Fine, that's his right to make his land worthless. Unfortunately, that swamp extends onto our ranch. He tried first to build a dam, but that would have flooded out half of OUR field. He then called in the DFW. An ARMED official trespassed on our property, and started painting lines to build a fence to keep our cattle off of the swamp as it existed. We made a stink to the local DFW and threatened legal action, and they didn't come back... but were told in no uncertain terms that it didn't matter if it was private property, if they wanted to annex it into the refuge that there was little we could do about it. I think this was a bluff, but they do have this attitude that they're above property rights. We have had cattle on this land for decades, and the swamp was just fine.

Another example, a few years later. we have two creeks that border a field, and join together at one corner of it. in 1996, the creeks flooded and joined in the middle, leaving a mud puddle about 10 inches deep and covering about 1 acre, dead nuts in the middle of the field. Another DFW trespasser came on our property, trying to claim that the entire field was 'clearly a wetland' and we needed to get our cattle off it. Never mind that there was green grass under the water, and the rivers were normally about 10 feet below the grade of the field.

A neighbor has about 1000 acres of timber he planted about 40 or 50 years ago, to harvest as his retirement fund. It borders BLM land. He applies for the permit to start cashing in, and low and behold, he's denied. Apparently, a BLM employee said there are 'dozens' of spotted owls nesting on the property. First off, what is a BLM employee doing on his property? He appeals to the forestry department, tells them to come out and show him. He spends a lot of time on this land, and knows there aren't any. He, and the USDA official go to meet them at the gate bordering BLM land. The BLM guys were already there, and refuse to point out the nest locations. They have some guy there, who holds out a dead mouse, and a spotted owl swoops down and grabs it, and fly's off to a branch nearby. What wild owl would do that? in broad daylight no less. They have a TRAINED goddamned owl they use to lock up timber bordering BLM land.

The USDA official smelled the rat, and sand "So, while you can't harvest timber within a certain distance of a spotted owl nest, you can fall a spotted owl nested tree for firewood. Make of that what you will." So he did. Turns out this nest was built with nails and sawed wood. Crafty fucking owl.

Those who live in the city don't see this stuff, but it happens ALL the time. If you had multi generation farmland, and some wormy desk rider bitch came and told you to fence it off and sniveled something about "usufructory rights" and 'sustainable land use,' you'd be pissed too. Especially when these farmers have proven to be better stewards of the land than the feds anyway.

The BLM should also have some of it's employees jailed. They set wildfires all the time, and have killed hundreds of cattle and destroyed thousands of acres of private land. They diverted water to flood out ranchers who refused their low-ball offers for their land.

As someone who grew up on the ranch, I can attest to the thug tactics used by the DFW and BLM when trying to land-grab. Examples: a neighbor made his property a nature refuge for birds and frogs. Fine, that's his right to make his land worthless. Unfortunately, that swamp extends onto our ranch. He tried first to build a dam, but that would have flooded out half of OUR field. He then called in the DFW. An ARMED official trespassed on our property, and started painting lines to build a fence to keep our cattle off of the swamp as it existed. We made a stink to the local DFW and threatened legal action, and they didn't come back... but were told in no uncertain terms that it didn't matter if it was private property, if they wanted to annex it into the refuge that there was little we could do about it. I think this was a bluff, but they do have this attitude that they're above property rights. We have had cattle on this land for decades, and the swamp was just fine.

Thanks for sharing that information. I don't necessarily agree with the protesters, but I definitely don't agree that the feds can arbitrarily order someone who already served their time to go back and serve more time after the fact. Wouldn't that be a form of double jeopardy? I don't want to live in a country where the government can do that. Period. Or one that can get away with harassing citizens to steal their land, either.

They have some guy there, who holds out a dead mouse, and a spotted owl swoops down and grabs it, and fly's off to a branch nearby. What wild owl would do that? in broad daylight no less. They have a TRAINED goddamned owl they use to lock up timber bordering BLM land.

I'm not commenting about the majority of your post, which I can't comment on. But this is, in fact, one of the ways that biologists locate wild spotted owl nests. It is of course possible, but highly unlikely, that the bird was trained. I've personally located wild spotted owl nests this way in remote mountain areas of California. It seems weird, I agree, but spotted owls are extremely non-wary, and very approachable. Hell, you just imitate their call and they will often fly in a perch next to you. Not the brightest birds LOL.

The fact that one was nearby and took the mouse doesn't necessarily prove the presence of nesting, however, just the owl's presence at that location. To determine active nests, you'd have to locate the actual nest cavity and see signs of reproduction (young, prey remains, eggshells, etc). The reason biologists 'mouse' spotted owls is that it is quick and easy to locate the nest IF the owl takes the mouse, and then flies to the nest to feed young.

Again, I have no doubt your attitude is 'fuck all the stupid owls', but that isn't why I'm posting. Just pointing out that your idea that biologists use trained owls is most likely paranoia (possibly warranted, which I can't judge).

I am generally opposed to mandatory terms (as opposed to sentencing guidelines) and have mixed feelings about their jail terms. Those sentencing issues came about post OK-city bombing. However, the 5 years is more about our response to terrorism and application of minimum sentences than ranching issues. None of the coverage I've seen has specified a plea bargain agreement being reneged on.

My attitude is 'fuck the stupid owls' if they're planted there. I'll have to look into the mouse dangling thing... it would explain why they're endangered. but the nest being built out of nails and boards in the tree sure makes it seem like they brought it in, one way or another. I personally didn't see the nest, and given that a central part of the story was the trained owl thing, the rest seems to be suspect to me now.

I am generally opposed to mandatory terms (as opposed to sentencing guidelines) and have mixed feelings about their jail terms. Those sentencing issues came about post OK-city bombing. However, the 5 years is more about our response to terrorism and application of minimum sentences than ranching issues. None of the coverage I've seen has specified a plea bargain agreement being reneged on.

My understanding is that they agreed to plead guilty to two fires - the 2001, and 2006 fires (one of which was with BLM verbal permission.), and sign over a first-right-of-refusal for their land. In exchange, they'd only be sentenced to several months and about 1 year (for the dad and son. can't remember who got what here.). The DOJ later decided that the terrorism MMS applied, and said they needed to finish the five years. Because they were found guilty (per the plea bargain) AND the law states a minimum sentence for burning federal property, there was no choice but to sentence them for 5. Had they known that, they may have rejected the plea bargain, and been found totally innocent.

As for the court papers... the denial for renewal was due to being found guilty of arson. It is completely ridiculous that this was used against them... as they were engaging in burning tactics widely used by other ranchers, AND the BLM, many times in cooperation, to control juniper. one of the two fires was done with BLM approval! While maybe against regulation, it was a prolific and effective practice to control that stuff. One fire was to back-burn into some lighting strike wildfires, and only got 1 acre of public land. It saved thousands of acres from burning, and whether it was the hammonds fire or not wasn't really clear either.

As for the court papers... the denial for renewal was due to being found guilty of arson. It is completely ridiculous that this was used against them... as they were engaging in burning tactics widely used by other ranchers, AND the BLM, many times in cooperation, to control juniper. one of the two fires was done with BLM approval! While maybe against regulation, it was a prolific and effective practice to control that stuff. One fire was to back-burn into some lighting strike wildfires, and only got 1 acre of public land. It saved thousands of acres from burning, and whether it was the hammonds fire or not wasn't really clear either.

It's basically entrapment, I'd think.

The DOJ and the court disagrees with you about the fires.

The Hammonds knowingly committed arson in 2001 to cover up another crime (illegal hunting). There were several witnesses.

The 2006 fire was indeed an attempt by the ranchers to create a back burn on their ranch to protect their feed. Despite dry conditions and a burn ban, the Hammonds started a fire and failed to control it. I'm skeptical -- and so was the court -- that the back burn "saved thousands of acres," especially since the BLM had to contain their back burn. In other words, this was a stupid and dangerous act on their part. They'd be up for manslaughter if a firefighter died from their unannounced and uncontrolled back burn.

As a global statement, I think the best option is for this to be resolved through deescalation and moving through the court system.

They broke laws, and at least some of their supporters have been intimidating law enforcement and local employees. I find the blase mention of resolving this through gunfire to be callous and short-sighted. I understand that at a visceral level that could be appealing/satisfying, but the FBI has hard-learned experience that escalation does not play out well unless absolutely necessary.

My attitude is 'fuck the stupid owls' if they're planted there. I'll have to look into the mouse dangling thing... it would explain why they're endangered. but the nest being built out of nails and boards in the tree sure makes it seem like they brought it in, one way or another. I personally didn't see the nest, and given that a central part of the story was the trained owl thing, the rest seems to be suspect to me now.

They aren't really endangered because they are approachable, I was making a joke there. They are endangered because they require fairly large stands of old growth forest, which is prime timber, and there isn't much of it left. A similar, non-endangered, relative species, the Barred Owl, does well in more mixed-age forest and will outcompete the SO where their ranges cross, so even when SOs are able to habituate somewhat to less than optimal forest, they will be 'elbowed out' by the better-adapted Barred Owls in the area.

"Planting" an owl for nefarious purposes is highly unlikely (logistically very difficult for a lot of different reasons that I won't bother going into). The mousing thing has been a standard technique for working with SOs since the 1980s, so it is very likely that SOs were legitimately present in the area. If they were indeed nesting on the public land, the managers would indeed typically NOT disclose the nest locations (particularly to a hostile individual), for fear of foul play.

If the species is endangered (and SOs are), then some forms of artificial support will be used to help sustain it on public land where it occurs (particular kinds of silvicultural management; putting up nest platforms if appropriate nesting trees are not plentiful, etc.). If there was a 'built nest' that would likely be a nest platform; this is another standard management technique for birds that will use them and are at risk because of insufficient nesting habitat (SOs nest in tree-cavities, but will use broken off tree stubs or broad tree crotches as well...hence the platform).

HOWEVER, just because the owl was legitimately in the area, and very well might have been using the nest platform, doesn't necessarily mean the landowner's story is completely false. The caginess that biologists typically adopt with the public when it comes to endangered species is understandable, given that they are legally charged to protect the animals on behalf of the public, but it certainly does not engender trust or confidence in a suspicious person and isn't very helpful to work out disputes such as this in a mature way.

I could hypothetically see 1) a legitimate mistake in placement of the platform, so that it ended up close enough to private land so that some of the private land couldn't be harvested...typically in that case, an arrangement might be made to move the platform away from the bordering land...this could be impossible if the land patch is too small; or it might have to be postponed until the nest was not in active use (non-breeding season) because active nest sites are legally protected from disturbance; or 2) an unscrupulous manager might have deliberately placed the platform close to the border, to try to prevent old-growth timber harvest on adjacent private land. No way for me to judge of course, and the rules about this type of thing are complex. I'm not a legal expert in that regard. I just know raptor and bird biology.

Boy did that go off on a tangent! Sorry all.

As to the morons occupying the refuge: apparently their splinter Mormon-sect beliefs encourage them to this action, because god will send an army of like-minded armed citizens to stand with them against the tyranny of the gov't. So mostly, the longer this drags on and the stupider they look, and the longer people don't come join them, the more I point and laugh and hope they are worrying that god doesn't love them after all. Schadenfreudelicious.

As for the court papers... the denial for renewal was due to being found guilty of arson. It is completely ridiculous that this was used against them... as they were engaging in burning tactics widely used by other ranchers, AND the BLM, many times in cooperation, to control juniper. one of the two fires was done with BLM approval! While maybe against regulation, it was a prolific and effective practice to control that stuff. One fire was to back-burn into some lighting strike wildfires, and only got 1 acre of public land. It saved thousands of acres from burning, and whether it was the hammonds fire or not wasn't really clear either.

It's basically entrapment, I'd think.

The DOJ and the court disagrees with you about the fires.

The Hammonds knowingly committed arson in 2001 to cover up another crime (illegal hunting). There were several witnesses.

The only witness of note was a nephew who testified that they did the poaching at that time. Curiously, that particular nephew is mentally disabled; so it's widely believed that the DOJ planted the idea. Honestly, if you had several hundred acres of land, why would you poach on government land? And if you did poach on government land, why would you bother to set a fire to cover it up? All they would have had to do was drag it across the property line, and wait a few days. It's not like there are game wardens who patrol those areas on a regular basis.

Quote

The 2006 fire was indeed an attempt by the ranchers to create a back burn on their ranch to protect their feed. Despite dry conditions and a burn ban, the Hammonds started a fire and failed to control it. I'm skeptical -- and so was the court -- that the back burn "saved thousands of acres," especially since the BLM had to contain their back burn. In other words, this was a stupid and dangerous act on their part. They'd be up for manslaughter if a firefighter died from their unannounced and uncontrolled back burn.

Yes they would, but that's not what happened. The details matter, not what-ifs. The Hammonds were not charged with terrorism because they make poor decisions about fire control. This is a crazy & complex case, with roots that go back decades.

As a global statement, I think the best option is for this to be resolved through deescalation and moving through the court system.

They broke laws, and at least some of their supporters have been intimidating law enforcement and local employees. I find the blase mention of resolving this through gunfire to be callous and short-sighted. I understand that at a visceral level that could be appealing/satisfying, but the FBI has hard-learned experience that escalation does not play out well unless absolutely necessary.

Actually, it was reported today, that it was the FBI that was caught impersonating the militiamen who were harassing locals. Basically a black flag operation to turn local opinion against the protestors.

Would a handful of people with picket signs in Burns, Oregon have attracted any attention at all? I doubt it. That said, Bundy is a moron who is trying to conflate his self-interest with the outright bullshit that was force upon the Hammonds by the BLM and the dept of justice. The Hammonds should absolutely be freed from jail. This was clearly done to ruin the hammonds, who plea-bargained for the shorter sentences by allowing the BLM to have first right of refusal on the sale of their property.

The BLM should also have some of it's employees jailed. They set wildfires all the time, and have killed hundreds of cattle and destroyed thousands of acres of private land. They diverted water to flood out ranchers who refused their low-ball offers for their land.

As someone who grew up on the ranch, I can attest to the thug tactics used by the DFW and BLM when trying to land-grab. Examples: a neighbor made his property a nature refuge for birds and frogs. Fine, that's his right to make his land worthless. Unfortunately, that swamp extends onto our ranch. He tried first to build a dam, but that would have flooded out half of OUR field. He then called in the DFW. An ARMED official trespassed on our property, and started painting lines to build a fence to keep our cattle off of the swamp as it existed. We made a stink to the local DFW and threatened legal action, and they didn't come back... but were told in no uncertain terms that it didn't matter if it was private property, if they wanted to annex it into the refuge that there was little we could do about it. I think this was a bluff, but they do have this attitude that they're above property rights. We have had cattle on this land for decades, and the swamp was just fine.

Another example, a few years later. we have two creeks that border a field, and join together at one corner of it. in 1996, the creeks flooded and joined in the middle, leaving a mud puddle about 10 inches deep and covering about 1 acre, dead nuts in the middle of the field. Another DFW trespasser came on our property, trying to claim that the entire field was 'clearly a wetland' and we needed to get our cattle off it. Never mind that there was green grass under the water, and the rivers were normally about 10 feet below the grade of the field.

A neighbor has about 1000 acres of timber he planted about 40 or 50 years ago, to harvest as his retirement fund. It borders BLM land. He applies for the permit to start cashing in, and low and behold, he's denied. Apparently, a BLM employee said there are 'dozens' of spotted owls nesting on the property. First off, what is a BLM employee doing on his property? He appeals to the forestry department, tells them to come out and show him. He spends a lot of time on this land, and knows there aren't any. He, and the USDA official go to meet them at the gate bordering BLM land. The BLM guys were already there, and refuse to point out the nest locations. They have some guy there, who holds out a dead mouse, and a spotted owl swoops down and grabs it, and fly's off to a branch nearby. What wild owl would do that? in broad daylight no less. They have a TRAINED goddamned owl they use to lock up timber bordering BLM land.

The USDA official smelled the rat, and sand "So, while you can't harvest timber within a certain distance of a spotted owl nest, you can fall a spotted owl nested tree for firewood. Make of that what you will." So he did. Turns out this nest was built with nails and sawed wood. Crafty fucking owl.

Those who live in the city don't see this stuff, but it happens ALL the time. If you had multi generation farmland, and some wormy desk rider bitch came and told you to fence it off and sniveled something about "usufructory rights" and 'sustainable land use,' you'd be pissed too. Especially when these farmers have proven to be better stewards of the land than the feds anyway.

I don't have any multi-generational family land. My brother has ours because he loves it more than I do. My cousin has another tract, much bigger, in another part of the state. So I get it, and I understand where you're coming from.

I have done some reading from the side of people who support the occupiers' message if not their methods. It's consistent with some of what you said regarding government overreach if not plain stupidity. Best example was a rancher who managed his ranch so effectively that all the birds left the refuge next door in favor of his ranch. Then the refuge managers wanted to confiscate his ranch because it was such great habitat. W. T. F. Why isn't this stuff reported in the main stream press? If more of this is exposed by the Bundy actions, it will be a good thing.

But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

While that is true, is what the Bundy militia is doing in Oregon so much different than what Occupy Wall Street was doing? Both were the (low level) occupation of a public space. In both cases, the original concept was a protest by civil disobedience, which is an "extenuating circumstance" under most misdemeanor charges in most places. And in both cases the civil disobedience (the illegal act) is performed for the purpose of bringing media (and therefore public) attention to gross misconduct of an institution that (often unreasonably) receives the benefit of the doubt from national media.

They are different because the Occupy Wall Street movement didn't publicly state that they were armed, that they would defend themselves, and that they would die for their cause. By doing this, the Bundy clan has crossed the line.

Ncornilson is right that the Bundy tactics are more likely to get media attention than a peaceful protest in a sparsely populated remote steppe. Maybe it's calculated that way. But it is still illegal and oversteps the constitutional rights that we all have to peacefully assemble and to petition our government for redress of grievances.

But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

While that is true, is what the Bundy militia is doing in Oregon so much different than what Occupy Wall Street was doing? Both were the (low level) occupation of a public space. In both cases, the original concept was a protest by civil disobedience, which is an "extenuating circumstance" under most misdemeanor charges in most places. And in both cases the civil disobedience (the illegal act) is performed for the purpose of bringing media (and therefore public) attention to gross misconduct of an institution that (often unreasonably) receives the benefit of the doubt from national media.

1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.3) Some Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested.

But it doesn't change the fact that what the occupiers are doing is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

While that is true, is what the Bundy militia is doing in Oregon so much different than what Occupy Wall Street was doing? Both were the (low level) occupation of a public space. In both cases, the original concept was a protest by civil disobedience, which is an "extenuating circumstance" under most misdemeanor charges in most places. And in both cases the civil disobedience (the illegal act) is performed for the purpose of bringing media (and therefore public) attention to gross misconduct of an institution that (often unreasonably) receives the benefit of the doubt from national media.

1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.

The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.

Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.

Quote

2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.

There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.

They are different because the Occupy Wall Street movement didn't publicly state that they were armed, that they would defend themselves, and that they would die for their cause. By doing this, the Bundy clan has crossed the line.

References please? I am willing to be wrong, but did actual militiamen say this, or is this heresay?

Quote

Ncornilson is right that the Bundy tactics are more likely to get media attention than a peaceful protest in a sparsely populated remote steppe. Maybe it's calculated that way. But it is still illegal

Well, of course it is. So was Occupy Wall Street's continuous occupation of that park. So what? That is the common thread across all civil disobedience, that some civil law is being disobeyed. It's still a protest, and the intent of the protestors should be considered. That is not to say that they shouldn't still be arrested, and perhaps serve jail time, over what actually occurs during the protest; but don't you think that is up to a court to determine after it's all over?

Quote

and oversteps the constitutional rights that we all have to peacefully assemble and to petition our government for redress of grievances.

In what way? As far as I can tell, there has been no violence at all; much less violence initiated by the protesters. How is this not a peaceful assembly of like minded citizens, exactly? Just because they are doing their assembly on public property without asking for the permission of authorities? I think you already know the answer to this one, even if you don't like what the protesters have to say.

1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.

The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.

Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.

From Ammon Bundy himself:

Quote

"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"

2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.

There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.

1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.

The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.

Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.

From Ammon Bundy himself:

Quote

"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"

More jumping, Beltim. Tired yet? You left out the part about Bundy being asked about looking for a violent confrontation. Read it again, without your "anti-redneck" bias, and you will notice that Bundy wasn't calling for violence here. If this is the best you have, I'm calling bullshit on your claim that they are looking for a confrontation. This comment is consistent with a bluff.

Quote

Quote

Quote

2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.

There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.

If they were on the land, you might be right. But they're occupying a government building, which is illegal. Again, criminal.

They are occupying a garage in the middle of nowhere, located upon property that is actually under dispute, and has been for about as long as the BLM has existed. Criminals they may be, but that still isn't your's to decide, fortunately. Personally, I think that they may be going about it the wrong way, but I can't argue with their results so far. If they were really smart, they'd quietly get rid of their guns, and film the fed's while they are getting arrested.

1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.

The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.

Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.

From Ammon Bundy himself:

Quote

"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"

More jumping, Beltim. Tired yet? You left out the part about Bundy being asked about looking for a violent confrontation. Read it again, without your "anti-redneck" bias, and you will notice that Bundy wasn't calling for violence here. If this is the best you have, I'm calling bullshit on your claim that they are looking for a confrontation. This comment is consistent with a bluff.

You're awfully quick to throw out accusations about bias with no evidence. You might find that arguing the facts instead of claiming bias is more effective.

The link I provided has a direct quote from Bundy saying he would be violent if the government "want[ed] their building back." This is illegal occupation with the threat of violence.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.

There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.

If they were on the land, you might be right. But they're occupying a government building, which is illegal. Again, criminal.

They are occupying a garage in the middle of nowhere, located upon property that is actually under dispute, and has been for about as long as the BLM has existed. Criminals they may be, but that still isn't your's to decide, fortunately. Personally, I think that they may be going about it the wrong way, but I can't argue with their results so far. If they were really smart, they'd quietly get rid of their guns, and film the fed's while they are getting arrested.

I'm a federal employee. I work in a federal facility. If armed men came and tried to occupy my work site, armed federal agents would come and shoot those people dead.

I'm not entirely clear on why that didn't happen in this case.

Basically, I think this is new federal policy to "do nothing" in such cases. For similar reasons, the US government doesn't do eminent domain anymore when they need to build infrastructure, which has led to a handful of landowners costing the nation hundreds of billions of dollars (your taxes) to build extra stuff other places, instead of just the important stuff in the places it should obviously go. The government just bends over backwards to accommodate anyone with an opinion, and we all suffer for it.

At the moment, the pendulum of power has swung WAY too far towards private citizens. George Washington, POTUS who put the Whiskey Rebellion into every American textbook, would be ashamed.

Hell, even threatening violence against a federal employee in the performance of his duties is a felony. These guys in Oregon are ultimately going to jail, it's just a matter of how they defuse the PR situation before that happens.

1) The criminals in Oregon are armed and say they're willing to kill or be killed.

The fact that they are armed is a notable difference, but only of degree. It's notable to point out that being armed in Oregon isn't typically a felony in it's own right; doing the same thing in Times Square most certainly would be.

Also, please show me where anyone within the protest has stated that they welcome violence. All that I can find is that they refuse to leave voluntarily, and left the rest up to imagination. You can assume that they are willing to engage in a firefight with feds if you wish, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's a bluff for media attention; which, once again, is the end goal of a civil disobedient style of public protest.

From Ammon Bundy himself:

Quote

"The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,"

More jumping, Beltim. Tired yet? You left out the part about Bundy being asked about looking for a violent confrontation. Read it again, without your "anti-redneck" bias, and you will notice that Bundy wasn't calling for violence here. If this is the best you have, I'm calling bullshit on your claim that they are looking for a confrontation. This comment is consistent with a bluff.

You're awfully quick to throw out accusations about bias with no evidence. You might find that arguing the facts instead of claiming bias is more effective.

The link I provided has a direct quote from Bundy saying he would be violent if the government "want[ed] their building back." This is illegal occupation with the threat of violence.

If you say so, Beltim. If you say so.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

2) Occupy Wall Street was mostly on public land, not restricted federal property.

There is no legal distinction between those two phrases, outside of the context of military property. The bird reserve was public land, for which many ranchers did, and many still do, own grazing rights that predate the federal management of that property. It was a bird sanctuary, bird hunting was was the primary restricted activity. Hiking & camping was also permitted with a federal public lands permit.

If they were on the land, you might be right. But they're occupying a government building, which is illegal. Again, criminal.

They are occupying a garage in the middle of nowhere, located upon property that is actually under dispute, and has been for about as long as the BLM has existed. Criminals they may be, but that still isn't your's to decide, fortunately. Personally, I think that they may be going about it the wrong way, but I can't argue with their results so far. If they were really smart, they'd quietly get rid of their guns, and film the fed's while they are getting arrested.

Please stop lying. Does this look like a garage to you?

Actually, no. It looks like a country cabin with a large wrap-around deck. Not even big enough to have an attached garage. Great for a cook-out, though. Nice choice, really. Definately prettier than the photo of a concrete block garage that I saw. Is there another building nearby?

I'm a federal employee. I work in a federal facility. If armed men came and tried to occupy my work site, armed federal agents would come and shoot those people dead.

I'm not entirely clear on why that didn't happen in this case.

Because there was no one in the building, federal employee or otherwise. The building had been winterized and closed for the season, the militiamen knew this. If armed men came to occupy your work building, they would be coming to defend the lives of federal employees; not prevent property damage. Context, Sol; look for the context.

Quote

Basically, I think this is new federal policy to "do nothing" in such cases. For similar reasons, the US government doesn't do eminent domain anymore when they need to build infrastructure, which has led to a handful of landowners costing the nation hundreds of billions of dollars (your taxes) to build extra stuff other places, instead of just the important stuff in the places it should obviously go. The government just bends over backwards to accommodate anyone with an opinion, and we all suffer for it.At the moment, the pendulum of power has swung WAY too far towards private citizens.

I'm not even sure that's a thing.

Quote

George Washington, POTUS who put the Whiskey Rebellion into every American textbook, would be ashamed.

George Washington was, supposedly, already ashamed of what happened during the Whiskey Rebellion & his role in it; so that's probably not a good example to choose. Washington was acting upon the advice of Hamilton, who also penned several op-eds published under the name "Tully". Washington was, supposedly, a bit shocked to learn later that what had been presented to him as an armed insurrection was nothing more than a tax protest; which has happened both before and since, without violence; and for which there was precedence in English Common Law (as well as the Boston Tea Party). Also, the use of force didn't solve anything for Washington, since the tax was largely not collected afterwards anyway. Climate science might be your area of expertise, Sol; but you should avoid stumbling into the areas of either History or Economics. You might just find I have the advantage in those fields.

Quote

Hell, even threatening violence against a federal employee in the performance of his duties is a felony.

Only if the threat is credible, and directed towards a particular federal employee. Just mentioning that they would resist the use of force to take the property, even with actual violence, doesn't rise to that standard. Which, I'm sure that you already knew, Sol. Unless, of course, the federal employee in question happens to be the POTUS; in which case the threat doesn't even have to be credible.

Quote

These guys in Oregon are ultimately going to jail, it's just a matter of how they defuse the PR situation before that happens.

Oh, I agree with that. I would expect that is part of the plan for most of them. That's a very effective method of bringing attention to government overreach, and it proves the point. That is, so long as they can't be accused of actually using violence to resist arrest; which is why I said their best move would be to sneak the guns away and replace them with video cameras. If a protester get shot because he is holding a video camera, it would be Ruby Ridge all over again. That would suck for the unlucky protester, but it would be a PR victory that the BLM might not ever recover from.

property that the feds. owned in many cases since the day they wrestled control from the tribes, and well before the states were even established.

...speaking of which, if anybody has a claim that the Feds should give up control, then it's the Paiutes, not the ranchers!

Of course, if they (or anybody non-white) tried the sorts of tactics Bundy and his accomplices are using, they'd have been shot dead already.

I was trying to play out in my mind how this scenario would work if the building being occupied was in Detroit and the armed men were all black, wearing hoodies. Then I tried to play out how the scenario would work if the building was in New York and the armed men were all Arab.

Nobody was left alive after the immediate storming of the building by SWAT teams in either of those scenarios. I can't quite figure out why these white guys are being treated so differently. It appears to be the most blatant example of white privilege so far this year . . .

This is all great arguing and all but getting way too "I'm right and you're stupid" for me to actually learn anything valuable. I am truly curious about the situation and why everyone is so grumpy. I tend to agree with the BLM because that is the information that has been passed on to me through media. Otherwise I would have no other opinion.

What ownership rights do ranchers/farmers etc have on the federal lands? I thought they were leases?

If it is federal public land, can any U.S. citizen use the property for their own personal gain?

From a previous post about some of the unscrupulous actions of federal employees: does the BLM confiscate privately owned property (not leased or grazing rights property), and not compensate based on the fair market value of the property? (eminent domain issue?) I read some of your anecdotes, and a neighbor changing their property that affects your use and enjoyment of your own property would be a trespass. Wouldn't this be remedied through tort law? (I took some law courses years ago so my memory may not be totally clear).

I would also appreciate any links explaining any problems or grievances. However, biased sources won't help anyone here. Is there really an unbiased source??

No, they don't take the land... they just dictate that certain areas are to only be used in certain ways. you still 'own' the land, so they have determined no compensation is due, they just get to tell you what you can do with it. I don't have an issue with eminent domain, as it is an important thing for society as a whole to install infastructure, etc. What's happening with the DFW and such is a different thing.

Alot of those leases are older than the federal govt's handling of that land. The people who were leasing it have priory on that land, but as long as you qualify I think anyone can.

I would be rightfully unhappy if I was unable to have use of my property without just compensation. I'm not a lawyer, but why hasn't this issue been challenged in court? If it has, what was the outcome?

Basically, I'm trying to figure out the root of the argument/disagreement. I get that some people are anti federal government and regulating private citizens, and some are for the protection of endangered species. No one can change their minds on that.

Does all of this really boil down to the relative merits of individual profit motive of leased land vs. environment protection?

The issue of whether or not the Feds have the right to a wildlife sanctuary here has been to the supreme court in the 1930s and it squarely determined that yes, the Feds can do that. http://openjurist.org/295/us/1

Ammon's brother Ryan made the kill or be killed comment. Ryan has a long history of overreach beyond what locals want, and appears to be a bit of a hothead and a provocateur (personal opinion, not particularly relevant to right/wrong of the current situation). Ammon stated publicly that he does not support that sentiment (I don't know if he says different things to different people). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KUz47-xh_Q

The issue of whether or not the Feds have the right to a wildlife sanctuary here has been to the supreme court in the 1930s and it squarely determined that yes, the Feds can do that. http://openjurist.org/295/us/1

Yes, the supreme court did do this. Yet, objections remain that SCOTUS didn't have the legal authority, under the Constitution, to even decide this question. This is just one of the legal objections noted by constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall. The root of her argument is that, according to the notes, anti-federalist & federalist papers, and the US Constitution itself; the US Constitution can only be interpreted as a contract between the states to form a federal government, and that same government definitely does not have the authority to own property, of any kind, within the boarders of a state; but only in territories, protectorates & foreign embassies. So at root, the original mission of the BLM was a unconstitutional over-reach of federal authority from the get go. According to her own website, she's in Oregon right now, advising a group of local ranchers on the extent of their land rights.http://krisannehall.com/

EDIT: So it should be obvious that this has become bigger than a bunch of rednecks in pickup trucks taking over an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere to have a two week campout. Even if, maybe especially if, the protesters get arrested; this brewhaha won't be over soon.

There may be a lot of whining and the politicians are just caving but a judge would not stand for this. link a paper article if you have one on hand

so long as there is still a 'use' of the property then no. I cannot remember the different 'tests' but basically so long as they didn't actually take it or remove all use then no. The most famous perhaps other than maybe Euclid is Lucashttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/1003

coincidentally, this is right in front of where we go to the beach, and yes waves are practically hitting the houses and there are always trucks dumping sand and driving in piers, etc. while the rest of the dunes are in pretty good shape.

The issue of whether or not the Feds have the right to a wildlife sanctuary here has been to the supreme court in the 1930s and it squarely determined that yes, the Feds can do that. http://openjurist.org/295/us/1

Yes, the supreme court did do this. Yet, objections remain that SCOTUS didn't have the legal authority, under the Constitution, to even decide this question. This is just one of the legal objections noted by constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall. The root of her argument is that, according to the notes, anti-federalist & federalist papers, and the US Constitution itself; the US Constitution can only be interpreted as a contract between the states to form a federal government, and that same government definitely does not have the authority to own property, of any kind, within the boarders of a state; but only in territories, protectorates & foreign embassies. So at root, the original mission of the BLM was a unconstitutional over-reach of federal authority from the get go. According to her own website, she's in Oregon right now, advising a group of local ranchers on the extent of their land rights.http://krisannehall.com/

EDIT: So it should be obvious that this has become bigger than a bunch of rednecks in pickup trucks taking over an unoccupied building in the middle of nowhere to have a two week campout. Even if, maybe especially if, the protesters get arrested; this brewhaha won't be over soon.

The view of federal land ownership is clearly an item that is being debated in some corners, but I don't think a majority of the population believes that the Feds should wholesale hand federal lands over to the states. I also don't think it is agreed upon that the Federal government does not have the legal authority to own lands and there is strong precedent and argument saying that the Feds can, in fact, own land legally. This is an issue that was also specifically addressed as Oregon became a state rather than a territory (and notably after the Federal Government invaded Mexico via Vera Cruz, took Mexico city, and then forced the leader (Santa Anna) to cede most of the west to the USA. A tangent further would be to note that the same leader's prosthetic leg is on display in Illinois and Texas wants it back, and that many who would later be notable in the Civil War such as Lee were part of the invasion.). Oregon was given much land in the Oregon territory at the transition to statehood (about 5000 acres of that are still being allocated following recent court decisions- notable that resolution of that took place through the courts, rather than through armed occupation.).

The Sagebrush Rebellion and friction against the Federal government is obviously larger than the Oregon standoff. That said, my opinion is that the Bundys are scofflaws and are not good representatives of their professed point of view (which I disagree with regardless of the mouthpiece).